Return to Transcripts main page
Glenn Beck
Religious Institutions Targeted in Colorado Shootings; Tancredo Boycotts Spanish Debate; Oprah Campaigns for Obama
Aired December 10, 2007 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOE PAGLIARULO, HOST (voice-over): Tonight -- Oprah hits the campaign trail for Obama. She can turn books into best-sellers, but can she win the White House for Obama?
And just days after a gunman kills eight at an Omaha mall, two more shootings in Colorado leave five dead. What is going on in America?
Plus, Michael Vick`s shocking prison sentence. We`ll tell you how long the NFL star will have to spend behind bars.
All this and more, tonight.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PAGLIARULO: Hello, America. I`m Joe Pagliarulo, Joe Pags, filling in for Glenn Beck tonight.
We begin tonight with dual tragedies in Colorado, where over the weekend there was not one but two separate shootings at religious institutions. Five people were left dead, including the gunman, who authorities have now identified as 23-year-old Matthew Murray. At this hour, investigators believe Murray was responsible for both of those horrific events.
Ed Lavandera has some background for us.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ED LAVANDERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It`s just after midnight Sunday morning when police say a man who looks to be about 20 years old, wearing dark clothing, enters the Youth with a Mission center in the Denver suburb of Arvada. He asks for a place to spend the night but is turned down.
The man then starts shooting at a group of people inside who had been cleaning up after a banquet. Two mission center workers are killed, two others wounded.
SUSAN MEDINA, ARVADA POLICE SPOKESMAN: He may have a beard or a mustache. He may be wearing glasses. And we believe he might be wearing a dark-colored skull cap or beanie, as it`s known.
LAVANDERA: The gunman escapes. Police search dogs can`t hunt the killer down in the snowy darkness.
Then, almost 13 hours later and about 80 miles to the south in Colorado Springs, another attack. A gunman who fits the same general description opens fire on worshippers leaving Sunday morning services at the New Life megachurch.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Let`s go. Come on.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He shot me in the arm.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We just heard screaming and people running through the cafe, eating area. And so some of us got to see what`s going on, because it kind of sounded like there was a fight. And then we just hear gunshots and then we`re just like oh, my gosh, what do I do next?
LAVANDERA: But the shooter didn`t get away. A New Life Church security guard takes control, shooting and killing the attacker. But authorities still aren`t saying if the same man is responsible for the deadly rampage.
CHIEF DON WICK, ARVADA POLICE: We are not in a place to confirm any information about any possible similarities to these incidents being widely reported throughout the media. And I`m asking that all of our communities be diligent until -- vigilant until we determine who`s responsible for these crimes.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PAGLIARULO: And again, an update here on that. Authorities are now saying they do believe it was the same gunman who perpetrated both of these crimes.
Joined now by Professor Larry Kobilinsky, a forensic scientist at John Jay College, and former DEA special agent Robert Strang of the Investigative Management Group.
Guys, welcome. Let`s try to make sense out of the senseless here. Professor, we`ll start with you. Let`s go all "CSI" on this. How do they find out that it probably was the same guy? What do you start piecing together here when you have two crimes 12 hours apart, similar M.O.?
LARRY KOBILINSKY, FORENSIC SCIENTIST, JOHN JAY COLLEGE: Well, first of all, the sites of the attack were religious institutions. Secondly, the description of the perpetrator was the same. Thirdly, the weapon used was a gun.
PAGLIARULO: Yes.
KOBILINSKY: And so there are a lot of similarities here.
And I think the police can definitively state that there was only one person involved. Ultimately, there will be ballistics evidence and all types of other evidence that will confirm that there is one shooter and he is the one that they have now.
PAGLIARULO: Can we make any kind of an assumption here, knowing that he walked in and allegedly said, "I need a police to sleep tonight" and they turned him away? If they say yes, go to sleep, maybe none of this happens? Or do you think that was a ruse?
KOBILINSKY: It`s really hard to say. This could be the straw that broke the camel`s back. You never know what`s going through the mind of a person like this.
And I think that`s what the police are going to have to ascertain by going through his phone records, his computer records, sites that he looked up on the Internet.
There`s something going on here.
PAGLIARULO: Yes.
KOBILINSKY: And it wasn`t simply that he was turned down. I mean, it was more than that. This was the straw that broke the camel`s back.
PAGLIARULO: Hey, Robert, it`s always good to talk to you. Wondering, you know, when I was a kid and I went into a church, I promise you I believed this. I didn`t think anybody could hurt me with a knife or a gun. I thought it was God`s house. It would bounce off me. Clearly, that`s not the case.
Do you think people specifically target churches and synagogues and places of religious belief because they know there`s going to be lax security there?
ROBERT STRANG, INVESTIGATIVE MANAGEMENT GROUP: Well, Joe, I think you could say the same thing about when you went to school or when you went shopping in the mall.
PAGLIARULO: Yes. True.
STRANG: This world that we live in is very different. If you look at the backgrounds of these young men who have committed these crimes, they all have broken homes, at least the last few I can think of. Virginia Tech, the shootings recently that we`re watching right now, and the shootings last week.
These are disturbed young people. Many of them have been on medication. Many of them have been diagnosed with bipolar and other disorders. These are guys who have access to weapons and were known to have weapons. These are young guys who played the very violent videogames on a regular basis.
PAGLIARULO: Yes.
STRANG: I believe we`re beginning to see a trend here. It`s kind of frightening.
PAGLIARULO: Does -- well, and I hear what you`re saying. Does a situation like Omaha, that mall, and that 19-year-old idiot lost his job -- "Oh, I`d better go shoot somebody" -- does that trigger -- can that trigger somebody like this 23-year-old we`re talking about today?
STRANG: I think we`re talking about the same type of individual, somebody who`s, you know, disenchanted with their life, someone who has severe mental problems, someone that is playing maybe these violent videogames that become a blur between reality and the game, has access to a weapon. And this is the kind of ending that we see, and it`s tragic.
But the problem is, Joe, that we`re seeing it more and more all the time. And we`ve got to start to be able to do some type of intervention. We`ve got to get people involved to be able to say, "You know what? I see something here that`s unhealthy. I see that, not only is this kid potentially suicidal, but he`s possibly homicidal, as well."
PAGLIARULO: Hey, Professor, in the cases that you`ve investigated and that you`ve seen and that you teach about, what leads up to something like this? Is it everything Robert said and more? Is it -- is it somebody who could be, you know, having a mental issue, somebody who`s taking drugs, somebody who has a life change, or are there just some bad people out there that we`ve got to beware of?
KOBILINSKY: Well, I think that Robert`s right on the money. I think that some of these people have emotional problems, some of them are on drugs. It takes very little to get them over the edge. And certainly, with the shooting that took place last week, the whole concept of using a weapon is in the mind. And so I`m not terribly surprised. I hope that there aren`t going to be any further clusters of this kind of incident.
PAGLIARULO: I would certainly agree with you.
Robert, OK, so I`m going to church. I don`t want to have to walk through a metal detector. I don`t want to have surveillance cameras watching me. I don`t want armed guards up by -- at the ends of the pews and at the altar. What do we do? We have to change the way we worship now, don`t we? We don`t want to be sitting ducks.
STRANG: Well, Joe, I`m going to say it`s the same thing when your kids go to school and when we`re shopping. You know, we don`t want to have this type of security around us all the time.
I think what we need to do is have good, trained armed guards, you know, like there was in the church.
PAGLIARULO: Right.
STRANG: They had noticed something might happen. They were afraid of copycat issues. They had a trained, armed guard at that church. How many lives were saved because he was there? We don`t know. It could have been 20. It could have been 30.
PAGLIARULO: It`s a good question, and it`s a very good point because of that mall in Omaha. It was a gun-free zone, so only the bad guys could have them. That`s another story for another day.
So bottom line is here, there were certainly signs here. Somebody should have seen this coming and when somebody walks in you don`t pat them down. I mean, the bottom line is, it`s just one of those nut jobs that got through the -- just fell through the cracks, right? I mean, there`s nothing we can definitively say, if we did this, this, and this it would have stopped this tragedy.
STRANG: Well, I disagree, Joe. If you look back and you look at the recent cases that were made and you listen to interviews and contacts with family members, people in institutions with the state, they knew that these were issues. They should have reported them.
PAGLIARULO: Well, very good point. Larry and Robert, thank you very much. We appreciate that.
Coming up, most of the Republican candidates for president took part in a Spanish language debate last night. I don`t know why. They don`t want to be the president of Spain or Mexico. But one man boycotted the event. He`s Tom Tancredo, and we`ll talk to him next.
Also, Michael Vick has yet another day in court. Is the former quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons ready to begin life as a prison inmate? Find out what lies ahead for Vick.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PAGLIARULO: Michael Vick, former NFL superstar, current prison inmate. Vick was sentenced to almost two years in prison today. I`ll tell you whether this spells the end of his football career.
But first, opinions (ph) of Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo run the gamut from racist hate-monger to American patriot. But he may have tipped the scales in the eyes of some when he decided to boycott Sunday`s Republican debate on Spanish language channel Univision, or Univision. That sounded kind of French.
Well, you can pretty much bet your grandmother where the cries of outrage land on that particular spectrum. Now, what you won`t necessarily hear is his reason for skipping the debate.
Joining me now is the man himself, Tom Tancredo.
Congressman, I appreciate your time.
TOM TANCREDO (R-CO), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thank you very much. It`s a pleasure to join you.
PAGLIARULO: Well, thanks. I`m an American of predominantly Italian heritage myself. I do a couple of radio shows in Houston and San Antonio, and just last week I got an e-mail from somebody calling me a racist wop. Do you get a lot of that kind of thing too? I mean, people just don`t...
And you and I, by the way, kind of agree on what`s going on with immigration. The entire population of Mexico can come here, Congressman, as long as they do it legally.
TANCREDO: Yes. To answer your question I get a lot of that stuff and have for a long time, and you have to sort of get used to it if you`re going to be in this business, as you know. And you have to get used to it, especially if you`re going to be talking about a subject that is this touchy, this controversial, this emotional. And there is a great deal of emotion wrapped up in it. I`m aware of it.
But I`m also aware of the fact that it is perhaps the most important domestic policy issue with which we can deal. And therefore, I feel compelled to do it as long as I can.
PAGLIARULO: Is it your feeling that the other candidates sold out by going on Univision?
TANCREDO: Absolutely. This is -- look, you are running for president of the United States, right? Or at least you`re running for your party`s nomination. You are talking to people who are registered Republicans, for the most part, because that`s the ones that are going to be voting in your -- in your election in the primary. But of course, everybody else who`s listen, who you hope to get their vote later on.
But that vote is dependent upon, hopefully, if the law is enforced, it`s dependent upon their citizenship.
PAGLIARULO: Right.
TANCREDO: Well, to be a citizen in this country, you need to be either born here or you need to, if you are an immigrant coming to the country and become a citizen, the law requires you to know and understand the English language.
So to whom else are you speaking at a debate that`s entirely in another language? And why would you be doing it, except of course, that you are pandering to both a group and a philosophy? The group of course is the Hispanic-American voting bloc that they think is out there that is going to only vote for you if you speak to them in Spanish.
And the other is this multiculturalist philosophy, which I totally reject. I`m telling you, it is going to be the death of our society.
PAGLIARULO: Well, if somebody tried to speak to me in Italian, I would actually be -- I would be insulted by that. I`m an American. I speak English. That`s the way it is.
I have to know, though, why not go out there, do the debate, and tell them, "Every time you speak do not translate what I just said. I`m here in protest of this debate"? Wouldn`t that maybe have gotten you some more traction than not going at all?
TANCREDO: Well, I don`t know. I`ve done an awful lot of interviews, as a result.
PAGLIARULO: That`s true. OK.
TANCREDO: So I`m not sure which would have gotten me more, quote, "time" on this issue.
But I will say that I believe that it is important to make a statement. The statement I made was, you know, I don`t -- we need to have a common language in this country.
PAGLIARULO: Yes.
TANCREDO: It is imperative. It`s not just some sort of chauvinistic attitude. It`s the fact that we have a country from which so many people are drawn, from so many different places, that once you are here, you desperately need one thing, at least, to hold you together. It`s called the language.
PAGLIARULO: And that at least should be the language. One quick question. I have to go. Do you hate Mexicans?
TANCREDO: No. I do not.
PAGLIARULO: Of course not. Congressman, thank you very much.
TANCREDO: Not at all. There`s no animosity in my heart for anybody.
PAGLIARULO: All right. We`ll get more into the hits and misses of the candidates that did participate in the Univision debate in just a moment.
But first, other big political news. Unless you`ve been living under a rock for the last 48 hours, you might have noticed Oprah Winfrey`s pulling for a specific candidate. I don`t know. Obama maybe?
She`s an Obama supporter, and America`s first lady of celebrity has begun to rock the campaign trail on his behalf.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OPRAH WINFREY, TALK SHOW HOST: I not only care about this country, but there are times that I even worry about what happens to our country. And that is why, for the very first time in my life, I feel compelled to stand up and to speak out for the man who I believe has a new vision for America.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PAGLIARULO: Well, I think we all care about what happens to this country. But the question may now be does America care that Oprah has stepped into the politics of endorsement?
Here to help me talk through this and other political stories is CNN political analyst and conservative commentator Amy Holmes and Democratic strategist and founder of LMB Incorporated, Julian Epstein.
Amy, Julian, welcome.
I just spoke with Tom Tancredo. He didn`t go to the Univision debate. Just a quick comment from each of you. I think he should have gone, taken that platform and maybe made some noise there. What do you think, Amy?
AMY HOLMES, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I think he absolutely should have gone. I mean, this is the central issue of his campaign. It`s his motivating, driving force. This could have been his very own Sista Soulja moment, to go to that audience and deliver that message, which you know, may not have gone over, but it would have been a strong moment for Tancredo. I think he should have put his money where his mouth is.
PAGLIARULO: Yes, I agree with you. Julian, what do you think?
JULIAN EPSTEIN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I agree with Amy. I think his boycotting the debate last week is consistent with his militant message on immigration.
I think, unfortunately, a lot in the Republican Party are following his message, and I think that`s going to be not helpful for them in the general election. I don`t think it`s worked anywhere where Republicans have tried it in any serious way, this general anti-immigrant "let`s deport all the undocumenteds." And I think it`s consistent with that, and I think it`s generally a mistake for the Republican Party.
HOLMES: But Julian, to be fair, I think a lot of Republicans, a lot of conservatives would say Tancredo goes a lot further than the front leading Republican candidates, or much of the party. His message is about immigration generally. All the other candidates are very specific.
There`s a big distinction between legal and illegal immigration. And I think that they can send a message about illegal immigration while also showing love and compassion for the...
EPSTEIN: I applaud what you`re saying, but I don`t think that`s the message coming out of Republicans today. If you listen to what happened during the debates, Amy, all of the Republicans, as Tancredo said, are trying to out-Tancredo Tancredo.
PAGLIARULO: Hold on a second. I think you`re right. They are trying to out-Tancredo Tancredo, with some money behind them, which he doesn`t have.
Got to talk about Opa -- about Oprah and Obama. It`s kind of hard to say, Oprah and Obama. She`s got plenty of money. But she`s also a woman who once said, "I`m not eating beef anymore," and the beef industry sued her because of how much power she carries. She says buy Julian`s book, we all buy Julian`s book.
Julian, is this a big get for Obama, or are people showing up to see Oprah?
EPSTEIN: Well, it`s very hard to say. As you remember from 2004, endorsements in Iowa don`t necessarily mean that much. Remember, Bradley endorsed and Gore endorsed. I don`t think it means that much. So I don`t think it means that much in Iowa. It doesn`t mean that much in New Hampshire.
It might mean something in South Carolina, where the single most important voting bloc is African-American women and where Hillary Clinton has a lead. So I think it remains to be seen.
But I think the Clinton campaign missed a big opportunity yesterday. If I were them, I would have had her at a hospital saying, "Look, I`m trying to fix the health care problem. I`ve got a better health care program than Barack Obama, because my plan covers everybody, while he`s partying with celebrities." She missed that opportunity.
PAGLIARULO: Amy, Oprah`s not doing if for South Carolina or Iowa or New Hampshire. She`s doing this for the national campaign, isn`t she?
HOLMES: I think that`s certainly right. But I agree with Julian. It actually cuts both ways. Some polling data shows that the vast majority of voters would not be swayed by an Oprah endorsement and the same number that might vote for Obama because of her would vote against him because of her.
And you know, I`m going to be very radical. I`m going to be the only person who probably will ever say this. I listened to her speech. I didn`t think it was very good. In fact -- I didn`t. I thought it was sort of the heavy-handed messianic message that she`s been giving. And it`s part of the reason why I say her movie ventures haven`t done as well.
So that`s not to take anything from her. She`s Oprah. But...
PAGLIARULO: Julian, I`ve got to ask you this. Does it matter that it`s Oprah? And Oprah`s not political at all. Oprah is -- she has stayed so far away from politics this might be the one that blows up in her face. She is not Bill Clinton. She`s not Bill Clinton backing up Hillary.
EPSTEIN: I actually agree with Amy. I think she was a little bit over the top with the messianic stuff, both in Iowa and particularly in South Carolina, where it was even stronger. It`s very difficult to tell.
I mean, Oprah is -- you know, Oprah is -- has just unbelievable cachet, but it`s mostly because I think she`s stayed out of the political realm. And I just don`t know that it translates to anything in Iowa whatsoever.
PAGLIARULO: Will the Clintons have to counterbalance this somehow, Amy? Yes or no?
HOLMES: Well, they do have Bill...
PAGLIARULO: Or are they going to sit back and see what happens?
HOLMES: He`s hugely popular with the party. But you know, look, Hillary`s camp must be sweating this a little bit. Every politician has wanted to be able to take a turn on Oprah`s seat and talk to millions and millions of viewers. She has enormous popularity.
And then the other thing she brings is huge news appeal. This is splashing almost everywhere.
PAGLIARULO: Almost everywhere we`re talking about it, right?
HOLMES: And if she`s going to be campaigning for Obama going forward, he might be appearing on her show more often. So those are huge assets for Obama.
PAGLIARULO: All right. Amy and Julian, great knowledge. I appreciate you both very much.
Coming up next, Al Gore stops by Norway to pick up a Nobel Peace Prize. I`ll get some thoughts on Gore from the one and only Glenn Beck, next.
Also, former NFL star Michael Vick is sentenced to nearly two years in prison. Is there any chance he can salvage his career? We`ll get some answers.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PAGLIARULO: Earlier today, former vice president, Al Gore, accepted his Nobel Peace Prize in Norway for his continued efforts to fight climate change. Is anybody else still unclear on how peace and climate change go together? Because I kind of am.
Gore happily accepted the prize and delivered his typical sleep- inducing "the debate is over" speech, which at no point resorted to scare tactics.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AL GORE, NOBEL PEACE PRIZE LAUREATE: The earth has a fever. And the fever is rising. We are in danger of creating a permanent carbon summer. A threat to the survival of our civilization.
A planetary emergency.
The world is spinning out of kilter.
Adolf Hitler`s threat.
Mutually assured destruction.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PAGLIARULO: He just said we`re all going to die. Joining me now, live out of Pittsburgh, the host of this very show and the author of "An Inconvenient Book," Glenn Beck.
Glenn, it`s so great to see you. My wife`s reading the Sunday paper yesterday.
GLENN BECK, HOST: Yes.
PAGLIARULO: And she calls me up and says, "I`m reading `The New York Times,` you know, best-seller list, and guess who`s on top? It`s the man, Glenn Beck." Way to go, man.
BECK: It`s crazy. Thank you very much.
I`ve got to tell you, the earth does have a temperature, and it is our ability to solve it is as real as this giant picture window that I`m sitting in front of where I can see the actual skyline of this...
PAGLIARULO: Well, you`re standing on a set, aren`t you?
BECK: Brrr, it`s cold.
PAGLIARULO: Al Gore, scare tactics we`re all going to die. I don`t think you believe in global warming, but it`s not like you and I are out here heating it up with our breath.
BECK: You know, look, the problem with the global warming thing is it has gotten warmer. However, the warmest record in the last 100 years is I think 1934 or 1937. It started actually getting cooler in 1999. The temperature here in the United States, we`re not breaking records here in the United States. You would think that it would all be getting warmer.
The question is, is what do you want to do about it? And what Al Gore proposes is to spend nearly $26 trillion. To put that, again, into perspective, I could educate and feed every man, woman, and child -- and child on this planet for the next 100 years and still have $21 trillion left to spend.
PAGLIARULO: Wow. I`m pretty sure, I just checked this out, Glenn, I don`t know if you even know this, I`m pretty sure Al Gore rowed over to Norway. He didn`t fly over or anything, because that would be wasteful. The carbon footprint would be ridiculous.
BECK: I love these people. You know, it`s like I talked about -- I talked about Islamic extremism. I think it is an actual threat to us, a very real threat that could mean the end of our western civilization.
Yet when I say that I don`t have my wife, you know, dabble in burkas on the weekend.
PAGLIARULO: Right, right.
BECK: It`s a threat. Sharia Law, a threat. I don`t kind of dance with Sharia Law.
Yet these guys will fly off in their own private jets to Bali and to Norway. I mean, here`s an idea. Why don`t you just have the next IKEA shipment -- or is that Sweden? Just ship that Nobel Prize back over this way. And Mr. "I Invented the Internet," how about a teleconference? I`m just saying.
PAGLIARULO: It`s a great idea. You think he still -- he might jump into the race? He`s still a rock star with these left nut jobs.
BECK: That`s who he`s a rock star with. I saw a report out of London today. He did a big charity fund-raiser. He was paid, I think, it was $150,000 to do a speech. They said the audience actually started talking to each other during the speech. They were bored with it.
PAGLIARULO: I can`t imagine people being bored with Al Gore.
BECK: No, no.
PAGLIARULO: Glenn Beck, author of "An Inconvenient Book," the host of this very program. Thank you again, Glenn.
Up next, real outrage. The story of a murdered cop and his celebrity killer. Stick around.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BECK: Twenty-six years ago on a cold December night, like this one, Philadelphia Police Officer Danny Faulkner pulled a car over for a routine traffic stop. A few minutes later he was shot right between the eyes and killed. Philadelphia native Wesley Cook, who is better known as Mumia, was arrested for the killing. Convicted by a jury of his peers and sentenced to death.
Unfortunately, that`s not where this story ends. In fact, it`s where the story really begins because Mumia quickly became the poster child for the anti-death penalty movement.
Despite overwhelming evidence against him, including eyewitness testimony, Hollywood celebrities took up the free Mumia case and death penalty opponents from all over the world rallied to his defense. He`s now an honorary citizen of France, believe it or not. But lost in all of this attention and controversy around Mumia, a convicted killer, is somebody else, Danny Faulkner, a 25-year-old police officer who was murdered in cold blood.
Now Danny`s widow, Maureen Faulkner, along with attorney and WHPHT talk show host Michael Smerconish are getting the other side out with a new book entitled "Murdered by Mumia." Joining me now is Maureen Faulkner, Danny`s widow, and Michael Smerconish from WPHT in Philadelphia, who co- authored the book "Murdered by Mumia."
Maureen, let me start with you. This has got to be a never-ending nightmare for you.
MAUREEN FALKNER, WIDOW OF DANIEL FAULKNER: It has, Glenn. It`s been 25 years. And I -- and Michael -- finally decided that we were going to write this book and tell the story of what I have gone through over the past quarter of a century.
BECK: I want to make this very clear up front. You`re not here on my show peddling a book because you guys are going to get rich off of this book. Neither of you are accepting a dime of this -- of this book, right?
FAULKNER: That`s true, Glenn. A 100 percent of our proceeds is going to the Daniel Faulkner Educational Grant Fund, that what we do is parents who have been murdered, we educate the children who have lost a parent from crime. So 100 percent of our proceeds from the book are going to that. I`ve never profited off --
BECK: No, I know that. I used to live in Philadelphia, and I know this story quite well. And America doesn`t. And you should know this story because it is just horrific at every turn of the -- in the road.
Michael, I want to go to you. Explain to the viewers that there is -- there is no doubt, this was a very bad man. Give me his history before he shot.
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, WPHT TALK SHOW HOST: Well, he was an activist with the Black Panthers, who years before he murdered Maureen`s police officer husband had written in a Black Panther publication, for which he has minister of public affairs, or some such thing, "Let`s write epitaphs for cops." So the idea that years later he would murder a Philadelphia police officer is not all that much of a surprise.
I mean, he`s someone who said that power grows from the barrel of a gun. And ultimately, he looked down the barrel of his gun as he shot Maureen`s husband, literally between the eyes.
BECK: Maureen, how did Hollywood get involved? When did that turn? Hollywood -- I mean, it was Ed Asner, right, Michael?
SMERCONISH: Whoopi Goldberg, Mike Farrell -- it wasn`t. It still is. It`s frightening. Spike Lee. I mean, the list is -- they took out a full page ad in "The New York Times." A laundry list of A-list Hollywood celebrities. The Beastie Boys and Rage Against the Machine played a 16,000- person sold-out concert at the Continental Airlines arena in Newark, New Jersey; 16,000 young people showed up, and the proceeds went to the Abu Jamaal defense fund. That`s how crazy this has become.
BECK: How did this happen, Maureen? How did they get involved? How did it go from your police officer husband shot to a big Hollywood agenda piece?
FAULKNER: I think a lot of these people were against capital punishment, and they saw Mumia Abu Jamal as their darling, someone that they could put up on a pedestal, they could make into a hero. And they started -- Leonard Wineglass, back in the early 1990s started to go around to college campuses and preach that Mumia Abu Jamal was innocent of murdering my husband. And eventually, he went around the world doing this. So it`s been years and years of lies and --
BECK: Has he -- Michael, has he ever -- has he ever said anything at any time other than "I`m not guilty"?
SMERCONISH: No. That`s the amazing thing about this. He of course has a Fifth Amendment right. He can`t be compelled to testify against himself. But you would think that before lending their names to this individual the Hollywood celebrities would demand of him an accounting of what was he doing if not murdering her husband. He`s written four or five books. He has a radio show. NPR came to him and wanted to effectively syndicate him nationally. He`s been a commencement speaker.
BECK: Wait, wait, wait, he`s in prison.
SMERCONISH: Yeah. And from death row via Memorex he`s been a commencement speaker, does a regular radio commentary. She can tell you about driving down the 405 one day in Southern California and having an emotional collapse because the voice coming through her radio is the man who murdered her husband.
BECK: What was he saying, Maureen?
FAULKNER: He was doing commentaries on a California radio station, KPFK. I was driving down the 405, and all of the sudden I heard this haunting voice on the radio, and I literally had to pull over to the side of the road, I was shaking so bad. I absolutely could not believe that the man that murdered my husband, brutally murdered my husband, was doing commentaries over the radio --
SMERCONISH: Glenn, if you permit me --
FAULKNER: -- on death row.
SMERCONISH: If you`ll permit me.
BECK: Yes.
SMERCONISH: So you`ve now hit the nail on the head. In 26 years of being very active behind bars he`s never offered an accounting of what transpired December 9, 1981. At the time of the murder there was someone else present. It was Abu Jamal`s brother. His traffic stop by Maureen`s husband is what began this series of events. The brother has never said anything other than I ain`t got nothing to do with it. But don`t you think if your brother were on death row for a murder he didn`t commit he`d say something?
BECK:: OK, but wait a minute. Let me go back to this. I think the bigger issue is what is the real agenda here? Because it`s not just about anti-death penalty because there`s a lot of -- we could go into -- Hollywood could grab any of this DNA evidence and say look at how bad the death penalty is. This is a bad guy. Whether he murdered or not, let`s just start there, he`s not the poster child of somebody that you want to stand up and say look at this innocent man. And yet he`s been made into a hero. So what`s the agenda from the extreme left to make this man into a poster child?
SMERCONISH: I think initially they bought into this case because there are shreds of truth to this -- and a lot of lies. But if you cobble together the shreds of truth, it can sound like a pretty compelling story if told in sound bites. For example, haven`t you heard that one of the critical eyewitnesses was a hooker? And another guy once threw a Molotov cocktail. And it sounds compelling. You say, my god, is that true? Well, yeah, but wait a minute, at 10 minutes of 4:00 in the red light district of Philadelphia, on a Tuesday night, you know, all the priests and the choir boys have gone home.
It was a hooker area, a red light district. So if offered the chance to refute every one of those lies, we can do so. And that`s what this book is all about. She wanted to create a permanent record, a response to every one of these canards, those red herrings that have been floated and sound convincing if you put them together.
BECK: Maureen, Michael, thank you very much. That is -- it is a compelling book, a compelling story, that America needs to hear. "Murdered by Mumia."
Back in just a minute.
(NEWSBREAK)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PAGLIARULO: Both animal rights activists Michael Vick supporters crowded outside a Richmond, Virginia courthouse this morning, waiting to hear how much time the former Atlanta Falcons quarterback would spend behind bars for his role in a dog fighting ring.
The federal sentencing guidelines called for 12 to 18 months in the can, but Vick got 23. Some might still consider that a light sentence given that he faced a maximum of five years behind bars.
So what lies ahead for the man who ran the Bad Newz Kennels dog fighting ring? Is there life after the big house? Joining me now is Mike Freeman, sports columnist at CBSnews.com, and criminal defense attorney Jeff Brown.
Mike, Jeff, thank you very much. I appreciate you stopping by.
All right, Mike, what do you think? Life after, you know, after sentencing to doing some heinous crime that some people think is worse than crime against humans?
MIKE FREEMAN, SPORTS COLUMNIST, CBSNEWS.COM: Oh, I think there`s no question he`ll be back in the NFL. This is a league that has in the past put people that have killed people, have put -- that have gone after -- beat up women, there have been all kinds of really bad elements in the NFL. Now, most players in the NFL that I`ve met in 20 years of doing this are pretty good guys. Most of the people that run the league are pretty good people.
PAGLIARULO: Right.
FREEMAN: But there are elements in the league and in football that have done really horrible things. So to think that the league is now going to grow a conscience and teams aren`t going to consider mike Vick, who is, by the way, one of the best athletes of the past 20, 30 years -- and one of the best athletes in NFL history. He will get some consideration when he gets out of prison.
Remember -- I want you to remember two things. Really, two people. Two players in the past that have made mistakes and been allowed into the NFL. One of them is Leonard Little. Leonard Little, 1998, convicted of running over a woman, killing her, while driving drunk. That was one. And then of course, a very famous murder case with Ray Lewis where he was accused of basically lying to police. And -- in a case where two people were killed. And yet he is still in football. So you`re going to see --
PAGLIARULO: Whoa, whoa, with Ray Lewis, I mean, he wasn`t convicted of anything. He apologized for even being there, whatever. With Michael Vick -- and you know this, it sort of goes by how the wind`s blowing. If the wind`s blowing this way the NFL`s going to say holy mackerel we`d better watch it, and people are being loud and holding signs with mean dogs on the signs. There`s something different about this.
And Michael, I`ll get back to you a second on that.
Jeff, I`ve got to ask you as a criminal defense attorney are you surprised by how much he gets sentenced on this, 23 months? I personally think it should have been double that because a guy who pleaded guilty and, you know, turned state`s evidence only got 21 months and this guy was allegedly the ring leader. As a defense attorney are you still put off by this sentence?
JEFF BROWN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: No, I`m not put off by it. I exclusively -- almost exclusively -- deal in federal criminal defense. And there`s been a movement for quite a while that the federal sentences need to be uniform. There are a lot of people that think that a uniform sentence is the only way to have a fair sentence. So Congress came up with what`s called the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. And it`s a range the judge has to follow. And clearly in this case the range, the top of the range was 24 months the judge could have imposed.
PAGLIARULO: Right.
BROWN: Keep in mind the reason we got to this level is the judge first looked at what the offense was and then he added in additional levels because of Michael Vick`s role. So the top of the guidelines was 24 months. And that`s pretty much what he sentenced him to at 23. Michael would have gotten a lesser sentence, except the judge took away some of his what`s called acceptance of responsibility.
PAGLIARULO: Right.
BROWN: And he based that on false statements. He based it on the marijuana use. So --
PAGLIARULO: I was going to ask, he was found with a drug test to have been positive for marijuana in September. First of all, the guy`s not using his brain, he`s facing al this stuff and says why don`t I toke it up and it`ll go away?
BROWN: Right.
PAGLIARULO: That is in fact part of, in your opinion, why he got sentenced to so much?
BROWN: That`s why he got sentenced to so much. As you know the originally the range was lower than this. The judge found him at a higher range.
PAGLIARULO: Right.
BROWN: He gave him almost the very top of the guidelines. There really wasn`t much more room the judge could have imposed on Michael Vick. In that sense, he got a high sentence according to the range and according to what everybody wants there to be as far as uniformity.
PAGLIARULO: Is there any way to appeal the sentence, or is this what it is?
BROWN: No, I`m pretty sure. I haven`t seen the plea agreement but I`m pretty sure in the plea agreement -- and they are always -- this is standard there`s a provision that says you can`t appeal this sentence unless the judge went above five years. It looks like this is what`s going to occur, it`s going to be the sentence he gets.
But let me say one thing about the drug use.
PAGLIARULO: Right.
BROWN: There is a provision that says if you are found to be using drugs you may be able to qualify for what`s called the drug offender program, or drug treatment, in which case you may be eligible --
PAGLIARULO: So he can get out sooner and go to the program?
BROWN: Yeah. So maybe it`s a risk to take, and he lost some time because of, but maybe now through the drug program he might get out a little earlier.
PAGLIARULO: And Mike, I`ve got to revisit this with you. Earlier when you were talking in the pre-interview you said that you thought he would come back, but not as a quarterback. What is -- he`s quarterback. He`s a very good quarterback. He`s got a great arm, he`s a great mobile quarterback. Why wouldn`t he be able to come back and do that again if he did come back at all?
FREEMAN: He`s a very good quarterback, but he`s a better athlete. That kind of athleticism, he has some of the best athleticism I`ve seen in a long, long time in any NFL player -- in any athlete, period. And I think what they`re going to do, what general managers are going to consider, and coaches, they`re going to look at not playing quarterback but playing running back or wide receiver.
PAGLIARULO: Really?
FREEMAN: Oh, yes, I think so because three years is a long time to be away from football, but because he`s such a good athlete he can come back to other positions --
PAGLIARULO: Does he have and I`ll ask you this, and it`s more of a political question than it is an athletics question. Would they not consider him to be the quarterback because that`s the leader of the team and he`s a convicted felon?
FREEMAN: That may be part of it.
PAGLIARULO: Does that have anything to do with it?
FREEMAN: That may be part of it, but remember, this is a league that has had people with worse character than Mike Vick. So, I don`t know if that`s a huge part of it, it`s more of a practical part of it. Football guys, GMs, they look at the practical aspect. They don`t necessarily look at the moral aspect.
PAGLIARULO: OK, and as a defense attorney, Jeff, I`m wondering when Michael Vick gets out, if you are his attorney, do you sit down and sort of rebuild his character with him? Do you tell him, OK, here`s what you can and can`t do? Don`t even look that way. Don`t even talk to this kind of person. Don`t even go near a weapon? What sort of advice you give a guy like this, who is getting out, who is trying to recoup a $30 million career that he threw down the drains?
BROWN: I think you start this -- and I would have advised Michael, if I was his lawyer, to have started this a long time earlier. He checked into prison probably three, four weeks ago. I would have had him check in at the time he entered his plea. And the reason for that is you have to begin to rebuild Michael Vick right away.
PAGLIARULO: It`s a matter of throwing yourself on the mercy?
FREEMAN: And if he would have done that he would have been out probably maybe close to the beginning of camp. Again, if he would have done that six, seven months ago. So I would have started that early. But clearly once he gets out you have to sit him down and say Michael you need to listen and follow my advice. And here`s some guidelines for you. It`s really not that difficult, but apparently for him it is.
PAGLIARULO: We`ve talked about pro football. I want to talk about basketball, baseball. There`s a whole lot of stuff going on when it comes to legalities, people being in trouble. We`ve got a lot more to do here. Quick break, though. We`ll continue this discussion in just a minute. Make sure you stay right here.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PAGLIARULO: Back now with sports columnist Mike Freeman and criminal defense attorney Jeff Brown.
Gentlemen, thank you.
OK, so I`m taking a look at the world of sports. You`ve got Barry Bonds who says he didn`t do anything wrong, didn`t know he didn`t do anything wrong. He`s up on federal charges. You`ve got -- just over the weekend, Jamaal Tinsley is hanging out in his Rolls-Royce outside of some, you know, nudie bar or something. He gets shot up with an AK-47, people in his car. One guy -- and I remember seeing this reported in the news. Oh, luckily nobody got hurt. Or luckily nobody died. Some guy got shot in each elbow.
I mean, what is the mentality -- Mike, what is going on with sports players who are making millions upon millions of dollars? You`ve really got to buy a Rolls-Royce, park it outside of a nightclub, go follow somebody who gave you a dirty look? What`s the mentality here that that`s breaking down?
FREEMAN: Well, I don`t own a Rolls-Royce. So I`m not going to do that.
PAGLIARULO: OK, me either. All right.
FREEMAN: I think one of the things that`s happening, it`s pretty simple to me, really. A lot of it is just arrogance. A lot of it is some of these players, they grew up in colleges and high school being treated very differently, being treated very special. And that carries on into the pros. You think you`re sort of indestructible and you think society --
PAGLIARULO: I have to interrupt because you make a great point. There`s a complete lack of responsibility from maybe even middle school sometimes if it`s a talented enough athlete to go all the way through to the pros never have to take, you know, take any responsibility for yourself. And suddenly they`re out there buying guns, doing drugs, acting stupid. You know, killing dogs, fighting dogs, whatever.
FREEMAN: Well, look -- exactly. Look at exactly what happens. When you`re in middle school, now, there are scouting services ranking players in middle school.
PAGLIARULO: That`s crazy.
FREEMAN: Which is crazy. So even when you`re that young you know you`re special, know you`re different. And I think that carries on as you get older. There`s no question about that.
PAGLIARULO: Hey, Jeff, I`m wondering as a lawyer, I mean, when do you want to get hold of a kid who`s got a whole lot of talent? Somebody like Lebron James, I don`t know the guy personally, but he seems to be conducting himself the way that I would expect somebody who knew he had it coming would conduct themselves. He`s still like 20 or 21 or 22 years old, something like that, and he`s a complete success. He`s the leader of that team. Most people aren`t following that example. What would you say?
BROWN: I think there`s two things here that I need to direct this to. First of all, I don`t think that there`s any type of correlation between an athlete who can throw a football and throw a basketball and making good judgment.
PAGLIARULO: OK.
BROWN: Just because you`re a pro athlete doesn`t mean you`ve learned to make good judgments in your life. And I think that`s what we`re talking about here. We`re looking at these people and we`re holding them up as role models, saying look at the way they throw the basketball or football, but yet that doesn`t mean they know how to make good judgments. And that`s kind of what we have going on here.
PAGLIARULO: All right, Mike, Jeff, thank you so much for your time. That`s going to do it for tonight.
Joe Pags in for Glenn Beck, from New York, good night.
END
